tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2410150815534563505..comments2014-12-12T05:29:46.343-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Five Big Rocks (part one)Dr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47056162672092902602007-10-22T20:53:00.000-04:002007-10-22T20:53:00.000-04:00sorry i will respond, i have been interstate recen...sorry i will respond, i have been interstate recently and have a backlog of work to do, so bear with me, thanks for your thoughts.<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81572077770287929222007-10-18T10:20:00.000-04:002007-10-18T10:20:00.000-04:00What do you do with the view that God did in fact ...<I>What do you do with the view that God did in fact create the world, and it didnt take 7 literal days and that yes he actually created humans from apes and that earth may well be million of years old. In mind that doesnt go at odds with the biblical account. Thats more where i am at, and i would be interested in your 'rebuttle' against this view rather than the 'fundamentalist view' that keeps coming up this site.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll set aside the fact that the world is billions of years old, not millions (hey, we all make typos) and focus on the rest.<BR/><BR/><B>Claim 1: God created the universe over some unknown timescale</B><BR/><BR/>This claim is currently unprovable. I think I agree with Prof. Hawking <A HREF="http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/" REL="nofollow">that we can never have a complete mathematical model for the universe,</A> which may indicate that we will never be able to determine what happened in that first yoctosecond of the expansion. This will leave the question of a deist God always unanswered, and is one reason why I relegate belief in a deist God into the "unjustified, but not much" category. My wife actually falls into this category. However, keep in mind that the fact that I have no reliable evidence against it does NOT mean that there exists any reliable evidence FOR it. There does not, and I think that the most reasonable position in this case is agnosticism--we simply don't know and may never know.<BR/><BR/><B>Claim 2: God created humans from apes</B><BR/><BR/>Fossil evidence, genetics, and evolutionary theory have proven that humans and apes share a recent common ancestor. But did a god direct the evolution? Well, there are a few reasons to think that, if a god did, that god is nothing like the Christian God. First of all, the human body has many areas of poor design. The appendix, for one; it has harmed and killed many more people than it has helped. Same with wisdom teeth. The human eye is wired backwards, resulting in a small blind spot. There are numerous other examples. The point is, the fact that we had to evolve from ancestors not optimized for the same niche that we are optimized for means that our body plans have several non-optimized "shortcuts" like the ones listed above. An omnipotent designer looking to guide evolution would be able to shift the path of evolution to eliminate these design flaws. Finally, all examination of mutation (and there has been a TON) suggests that it is not guided toward any ultimate goal; if a designer were guiding evolution, we would expect to see a directional push to mutation, especially if that designer were benevolent and wanted to prevent unnecessary suffering. However, we see that most mutations that do anything are detrimental, and the ones that are beneficial seem not to be going in any one particular direction. Therefore, if a god did direct evolution at some point, he stopped directing a while ago and didn't direct it to any unusually flawless design.Shygetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70328495982217726292007-10-18T03:10:00.000-04:002007-10-18T03:10:00.000-04:00Fair enough and i am sure we do have similiar view...Fair enough and i am sure we do have similiar views on whats right and wrong, i guess the source is what we debate. I can see your point with no hard evidence, but in all fairness lets keep some checks on how far we want to push that, a brain in a vat? hmmm...interesting....lol<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89535356872200757492007-10-18T01:56:00.000-04:002007-10-18T01:56:00.000-04:00ag- as I've said before, I have no "objective proo...ag- as I've said before, I have no "objective proof" that God does not exist. Nor do I have "objective proof" that I'm not a brain in a vat, or that the world was not created two minutes ago. But I also have no reason to believe that God does exist, and lots of reasons to believe that people made up, and are still making up, stories about gods.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad we can agree on the necessity that "something else governs" our ideas of right and wrong. Probably my ideas of right and wrong are not all that different from yours- we simply disagree on the source.zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23890425423356489262007-10-18T00:06:00.000-04:002007-10-18T00:06:00.000-04:00Zilch,Thanks for your attempt to 'clarify' with me...Zilch,<BR/>Thanks for your attempt to 'clarify' with me your point. <BR/>However the fundamental point i was making was the one we agreed upon that "something else governs" I understand you want to make an adhoc statement and say its not God, but where is your objective proof of this? Maybe it might not be the christian God, could it be another god? I know my answer but im interested in how you find it so easy to just dissmiss it as not God with not objective hard proof, but you want all the christians on this site to bring 'objective and hard truth'<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80091331494269092502007-10-18T00:03:00.000-04:002007-10-18T00:03:00.000-04:00Thanks for your response.I agree with you that it ...Thanks for your response.<BR/>I agree with you that it is ludacris to think of the earth as 6000 years old, and i think this is not a reality.<BR/>I support science in many ways on this ground.<BR/>The problem is your position of seeing all christian belief as the fundamentalist 'answers in genesis' group who want to claim the earth is only 6000 years old. They are wrong in my mind.<BR/>What do you do with the view that God did in fact create the world, and it didnt take 7 literal days and that yes he actually created humans from apes and that earth may well be million of years old. In mind that doesnt go at odds with the biblical account. Thats more where i am at, and i would be interested in your 'rebuttle' against this view rather than the 'fundamentalist view' that keeps coming up this site.<BR/>I support almost everything you said science has produced, it doesnt explain away God to me it mearly strengthens hi need to exist.<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54508949478258867812007-10-17T10:36:00.000-04:002007-10-17T10:36:00.000-04:00ag, I did read your post. And I specifically ment...ag, I did read your post. And I specifically mentioned how the origins of the universe are approached with the same rigor and method as gravity.<BR/><BR/>Here, I'll quote the sentence for you:<BR/><BR/><I>Scientific theories of origins all come from this same kind of observation and experiment, and work the same regardless of if you believe them or not.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to talk specifically about origins, fine. One faith-based idea of origins is that God created the Universe from nothing 6000 years ago. This idea about the origin of the universe is probably more firmly refuted by sciencethan the idea that gravity doesn't exist, by multiple independent lines of research spread across many fields. It is independently refuted by: <BR/>geology--measured rates of geological formation and the geological column support an ancient Earth<BR/>anthropology--civilizations that are more than 6000 years old have been discovered and described<BR/>astronomy--light from stars MUCH more than 6000 light years away has been measured (not to mention the remnants of the Big Bang billions of years ago) <BR/>particle physics--careful measurements of rates of radioactive decay clearly indicates an Earth and a universe that is much more than 6000 years old <BR/>linguistics--the pattern of language development can only be explained given much more than 6,000 years of language <BR/>archeology--fossils considerably older than 6,000 years have been found, along with the absence of creatures found today and the presence of creatures never seen alive<BR/>evolutionary biology--observed evolutionary laws explain biological variety on Earth, but indicate many millions of years of evolution<BR/>botany-plants more than 6,000 years old are still alive today<BR/><BR/>This origins story is clearly at odds with science. The only way out of this that conforms with the data is to posit a liar God--God made the universe to LOOK old for some reason. Yet if you allow a liar God, then one could just as easily state that God makes gravity LOOK like it accelerates at 32 ft per second per second, which you clearly object to.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you would like to reconsider your position that all creation ideas are equally credible and beyond the censure of science.Shygetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56491458867793316922007-10-17T05:33:00.000-04:002007-10-17T05:33:00.000-04:00ag said:If instinct is our driving force, than mur...ag said:<BR/><BR/><I>If instinct is our driving force, than murder, rape, violence, sexual abuse, are all legitamately 'moral actions' in themselves, why? because noone can argue against another person who said they acted out of 'instinct'. Something else must govern what instincts are 'correct' and what are 'incorrect'.</I><BR/><BR/>There are several misconceptions with this viewpoint, which comes up over and over in discussions with Christians. While some instincts can lead to behavior that we do not condone, other instincts are the foundation of our moral system: the desire to be fed, sheltered, and satisfied sexually and intellectually, and to cooperate with our fellows to achieve these goals. Beginnings of these instincts can be seen in many social animals, and they are highly developed in us humans. Thus, not all instincts are antisocial.<BR/><BR/>But for the peaceful, complex societies most of us want to have, following our instincts alone is not enough. Thus, we <I>choose</I> to have morals, laws, religions, and states to impose the additional order necessary to build such societies. And what we choose is what we decide to be "legitimate". For instance: if we want to live in societies free of violence, then we will not accept violent behavior, genetic or otherwise. <I>How</I> we choose to deal with it is another question. To the person who says he acted out of instinct, I would say that that's not good enough. <BR/><BR/>Thus, I would agree with you that "something else" governs, to some extent, what we decide to condone and what not. But that "something else" is not God: it is how we <I>choose</I> to behave, based upon our desires and our rationality. God is just one of the ways many people have come up with to enforce the choices they make with divine carrots and sticks.zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-667089678121857842007-10-15T20:16:00.000-04:002007-10-15T20:16:00.000-04:00Goprairie,1.What makes us different from animals i...Goprairie,<BR/>1.What makes us different from animals in that we are called human?<BR/>2. If instinct is our driving force, than murder, rape, violence, sexual abuse, are all legitamately 'moral actions' in themselves, why? because noone can argue against another person who said they acted out of 'instinct'. Something else must govern what instincts are 'correct' and what are 'incorrect'. I see your point but like i was asked earlier, at what point does one 'draw the line' when it comes to actions we do not condone in society. If we are 100% animal than abuse and violence and rape and murder are all legitamate. Many animals exhibit these behaviours within there social constucts and no court of law condemnds them or punishes them, so why do we have the right to do the same?<BR/>Anyway i was just probing a little more to see a little more clearly where you are coming from.<BR/>I strongly diasgree with this line of thinking, howver, i am intrestd in your perspective.<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88442329684545136752007-10-15T20:08:00.000-04:002007-10-15T20:08:00.000-04:00Shygetz,You want to be serious about arguing? than...Shygetz,<BR/>You want to be serious about arguing? than read what i said not what you think i said!<BR/>I said about creation theories!<BR/>Not about the laws of gravity or physics! nor about the credability of Newton or Einstein at all.<BR/>So the answer is no, i am not kidding. Don't get on here and try and ridicule me with 32feet per garbage that has nothing to do with what i was talking about. If that is the bets oyu can do with what i wrote than this blog is a waste of my time.<BR/>Secondly i had not mentioned anything about debating the Laws of physics or of gravity. So get real yourself and be genuine about arguing here on what is said, not what you 'think' i am saying. Or hitting me with one of your 'pat' answers to newbies here. Where did i mention anything about 32 feet per second? I was specifically talking about creation theories, of which are up for deabate. And on that premise i stand by what i said, maybe you could re evaluate your response to me after once again reading what i have said, not what you think i said. Man, and i thought many of you on here want a genuine and 'fair' dicussion/argument about issues.<BR/>Anyway....<BR/>All the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36021076199911354192007-10-15T14:51:00.000-04:002007-10-15T14:51:00.000-04:00I have no authoirty or integrity to be someone who...<I>I have no authoirty or integrity to be someone who argues with scientist about creation theories, why? because i have no investment or 'faith' in science as an 'ultimate' answer for what i am seeking, and it would be unwise to claim otherwise, sure i could get a masters in science and PHD in Physics, but if my 'faith' or religious 'values' are not placed in science as 'the answer' than i am not not being fair to 'genuine scientists'.</I><BR/><BR/>You're kidding, right? You've <B>got</B> to be kidding.<BR/><BR/>One of the key claims of science is that it works the same whether you believe it or not. Step off of a cliff and, regardless of if you think Newton was a talentless hack or God incarnate, you will accelerate at approximately 32 feet per second per second. Scientific theories of origins all come from this same kind of observation and experiment, and work the same regardless of if you believe them or not. It is hard to find competing interpretations of 32 feet per second per second based on someone's faith.Shygetzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78220904113802302312007-10-14T22:51:00.000-04:002007-10-14T22:51:00.000-04:00We are animal. We still have within our brains th...We are animal. We still have within our brains the brain of the predator and preyed upon reptile and the child-rearing mammal and the socializing primate and finally the communicating, time-percieving human - and we are often only aware of the information going to and being processes by the human part of the brain. There are constant instincts at work with sensory information being reacted to by the animal brain(s)and causing us to react and act in ways that we are not aware of the reasons for. Most of that is termed 'evil' is some instinct gone wrong, in a situation out of place or to an inappropriate extreme. And sometimes, what is 'good' for one is 'evil' for another, as in the predator/prey relationship. Most of what we consider morality has evolved to allow us to be social in order that we might better raise young to thier own reproductive age. Look to nature to see when certain 'moral' behaviors came into being. A reptile will often eat another reptile that it encounters and fish will certain eat its own young if that young does not disperse quickly enough. The reptile reproduces in such quanitity that it has no need for social groups. A mammal does not see its own young or young of its species as prey because it has evolved to care for its young so that it can invest less energy in quantity reproduction and more in care. But animals will kill each other over territory or mating. Humans were the first to understand time. Primates will make a tool to get food now, but once satisfied, will not plan ahead and make more tools or improve the tool. When primates first understood time, they became human. A comprehension of past begs the question of where did we come from. A comprehension of future makes us wonder what happens to us. Hence, we invent creation stories, and a spirit that lives on. A comprehension of the future allows planning and demands that we communicate with each other to carry out plans. COmmunication allows abstraction of ideas into words and then art of various forms. Ideas can be discussed. To see where a behvior comes from, look at how it benefited the raising of young to maturity. The social group raised more young to maturity because the individual could rely on the 'village' for some of his or her needs and could specialize. If one does not have to provide food AND shelter AND childcare, one can spend time figuring out better ways to do ONE of those things. Instinct governs all that and instinct evolved. The person most 'moral' had the best advantage in raising kids to theire own maturity and therefore got their 'moral' genes passed on. Nothing is inherently moral. It is thought to BE moral because we do it - because it is beneifical. Sometimes what is beneficial to one is harmful to another, and therein lies the fuzzy lines. And instincts gone wrong create harm, such as the instinct to nurture the children of the village getting mucked up with the instinct to mate, resulting in abuse situations. Niether instinct is bad, but when combined 'in error', they cause harm. THis is why it is to hard to treat them, because they are part of instinct. No God to see or prevent evil because there is not really 'evil'. Most 'evil' is someone else's good as in the Islam martyr thnking he is doing a great service to his religion with his sacrifice that kills many. A science teacher thinks the education to the student is worth the death of the frog. Were the frog capable of such thought, it would not see it that way. Instinct has us eat all the calories we can to store up for the lean times, yet our society rarely has lean times any more. We must fight that instinct to overeat. Overeating is not 'evil' but giving that instinct free reign is harmful. Hunting to bring food to the tribe would be beneficial but hunting too much would tax the environment and be 'bad' and hunting our own species is a 'serial killer'. The line between what we do conciously and subconciously can be adjusted through awareness and learning. The line between doing thngs to benefit self and benefit society is and always has been different among individuals. We remain 'diverse' in many ways in order to be an adaptable species. Our diversity brings us at odds with other individuals. Sometimes we agree to disagree. Sometimes we fight to the death over it. <BR/>We use religion to explain things we cannot explain, like how we came to be and what happens to us. When we figure out the real answers, we try to adjust that religion, but if it was so 'true' before, it is difficult to give it up once new truth is found. It is uncomfortable to 'not know' so religion will always have a place for those who need that comfort. <BR/>Evolution and instinct and the working of the brain are where the real answers are tho, not in a 'god'.goprairiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25767946250442362272007-10-13T09:18:00.000-04:002007-10-13T09:18:00.000-04:00Joseph:Thanks for you question.Of course i feel i ...Joseph:<BR/>Thanks for you question.<BR/>Of course i feel i have the right to question the church. But do you mean church as a local independant body, or are you meaning the Roman Catholic church, or do you mean the wisdom of the church througout the pst 2000 years?<BR/>I believe that one should listen to those who have gone before (early church fathers and those throughout the christain churchs history)and look at the whole council of scripture, seek out how people experience things, and also allow reason to play a guidin role in how i percieve the bible and in making decisions about things that are not mentioned in the bible.<BR/>Short answer is Yes, to a point i feel able to do so, for the church in itself as an institution has no authority over believers, but as a living community of faith it can have a vioce that sometimes needs to be listened too.<BR/>But to correctly respond , i would need to know what you mean by church.<BR/>Anyway all the best<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3624676615410021002007-10-13T09:11:00.000-04:002007-10-13T09:11:00.000-04:00Zilch:Appreciate your challenges. In an ultimate s...Zilch:<BR/>Appreciate your challenges. <BR/>In an ultimate sense or 'religious belief' i dont think Non-Muslims have the right to interpret the Koran in a way that holds authority . Yes, by all means pick on it and point out flaws, but what one says about it outside of Islam will make no difference because they are not Muslim, and will be treated as such. Most Muslims would not care for or be concerned about 'interpretation' outside of there own faith and 'shakes' (excuse spelling). Sure they will call you an infadel etc, but you will not change their 'living faith' because you are not Muslim.<BR/>I dont think people have the 'authority' to interpret outside of any other faith. Sure, debate and question, but if you do not hold to that 'religion' you can have no authority to genuinley interpret what there 'texts' say and expect to be listened to. This applies to anything one holds as their 'religious beliefs'. So i guess the line can be drawn with the Odyssey, however some may have this literature as their religious text, who knows, :o)<BR/>I have no authoirty or integrity to be someone who argues with scientist about creation theories, why? because i have no investment or 'faith' in science as an 'ultimate' answer for what i am seeking, and it would be unwise to claim otherwise, sure i could get a masters in science and PHD in Physics, but if my 'faith' or religious 'values' are not placed in science as 'the answer' than i am not not being fair to 'genuine scientists'.<BR/>The bible is complex and deeper than the words written on a page, and this is where attempting to 'proof-text' creates problems for those seeking to argue against it and for it. It was never written in a way that makes it proof textable. Yes when you read something you interpret it, naturally, you interpret Tolkiens LOTR by the words written, however this does not mean the way you see it in your minds eye is the most complete and accurate way to see it, or how Tolkien intended it to be seen. <BR/>Of course Non-christians can read the bible, sure they can 'interpret it', but just because they can read words and questions conflicts, and point out inconsistancy does not mean what they say is correct or authoritative. <BR/>The catholic church wanted to maintain a sense of 'integrity' to how the bible was interpreted, i agree they were wrong in the way the restricted believers in so many ways and allowed power to play a major role in what they did, which caused many atrocities. But the Christian Faith was not born from the words printed known as the bible. The printing press was not even around until hundreds and hundreds of yeasr later, so 'faith' has always had a verbal and communal element about it, hence the role of 'communities of faith' interpreting the word.<BR/>Reading the bible carefully will ultimatly be a sure way to atheism. Only if you see the very words written as having to be inerrant and verbally inspired will open that door. Because if you see the words as being the exact words of God with no human contribution than the minute you see contradiction and disharmony than something is wrong, or you feel the need to defend God as many christians do on this blog. <BR/>I bet that most (not all)of the EX-Christians here who are 'atheists' had come from or were brought up in a Fundamentalist, Concervative, Verbal Innerency believing background.<BR/>What you do with that careful reading can either help you see one way or another depending on how you view scripture.<BR/>The line is not alwasy easily distinguishable when dealing with belief systems of people, but i am open to discover another way of seeing things.<BR/>All the best Zilch, and sorry about the wordiness of my response.<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35307028040259967902007-10-13T03:58:00.000-04:002007-10-13T03:58:00.000-04:00AG, thanks for sharing. Do you feel you have the ...AG, thanks for sharing. Do you feel you have the right to question the authority of the Church?Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23753090543672818792007-10-13T03:48:00.000-04:002007-10-13T03:48:00.000-04:00ag- I've heard this line of reasoning before- the ...ag- I've heard this line of reasoning before- the Bible is not secular, and thus may only be interpreted by Christians. Sounds logical, but how far are you willing to go?<BR/><BR/>Should non-Christians even be allowed to read the Bible? You realize that reading something means interpreting it to yourself. Of course, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages didn't even want the Christian laity to be able to read the Bible- hence their opposition to vernacular Bible translations. Perhaps they were afraid, as Isaac Asimov put it much later, that the surest route to atheism is reading the Bible carefully.<BR/><BR/>Should non-Muslims be allowed to interpret the Koran? Non-pagans the Odyssey? Should non-dowsers be allowed to criticize dowsing? How about heliocentrists criticizing geocentrism? Where do you draw the line?zilchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78410082662972589082007-10-13T02:48:00.000-04:002007-10-13T02:48:00.000-04:00I must disagree with your portrayal of the church:...I must disagree with your portrayal of the church:<BR/>"The church encourages to not only forgive child abuse, but it goes further to put pressure on victims to forgive the perpetrators and to HONOR them." - Are you talking about the Catholic Church? or another? Lets realise that it is not christian belief to promote this kind of view. Given, many churches unfortunatle push this garbage, but that does not make it christian or biblical. <BR/>I do believe that forgiveness of those who have wronged against us is an important part of the healing process in humans, this does not mean we champion or 'homour' the one dwho did wrong to us, but we let it go and move on as best we can. <BR/>I am sorry that you have felt that the church you were apart of portrayed this 'view' of how you should respond to abuse (please realise that i too have been a victim myself). <BR/>After looking through the huge amount of posts here, i have been thinking along one theme.<BR/>It seems that the problem of sin has been classed as death, as a 'thing'. I would like to thow into the mix that maybe sin is 'broken' relationship. <BR/>We cannot trust the bible as a book of propositional truths that can be 'argued'. <BR/>I agree it has many aspects that contradict itself and many areas that are confusing. When we begin to look at the bible as more a 'story' that attempts to communicate the story of 'God's People' it can begin to be looked at not as something that has all the answers to everything in life, but as a piece of writing that seeks to capture peoples experience and understanding of God.<BR/>It does not matter how many christians get on here and 'argue' there point of view, NO minds will be changed here. For if all the 'non-christian' contributers on here really are not interested in changing (nor would i want them too), in the end this site is more a social outlet for the damage that has been done to many of the people who post, sure, get a masters in science, or PHD in debunking christianity and the bible, it will never make you a genuine biblical scholar. However, let all those who are not christians on this site who wish to argue and critique the bible to no end come to realise:<BR/>The Bible is NOT YOUR book to claim for yourself, it belongs to the community of BELIEVERS. No matter what you say or do, you have no AUTHORITY in interpreting it. <BR/>I know what i have just said will cause many of you to attack me, but if i am honest and if you listen to the what the church has said throughout history, the bible is not a book that is open to SECULAR interpretations, it is a book for the Community of BELIEVERS eg the 'church'. <BR/>So no matter how much you seek to debunk it, your views are of no importance to the church or those who believe, for the book was never written as an piece of evidence for court, but as an account for those who wish to find the way of salvation.<BR/>Anyway...so just realise that you may own a 'bible' and you have 'been' ministers, but if you are not christians with the spirit of God, you have no AUTHORITY or Claim to Interpret the bible outside of the community of God that is legitamate. You can argue and challenge 'words' it contains, but in the end you are arguing against yourself not christianity.<BR/>Anyway all the best.<BR/>:o)AGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48749707054864114252007-10-11T16:09:00.000-04:002007-10-11T16:09:00.000-04:00You're right, Lorena, it is evil! Excellent insigh...You're right, Lorena, it is evil! Excellent insights.Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49144182862300486892007-10-11T15:41:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:41:00.000-04:00Well, said Joseph.I am particularly touched by the...Well, said Joseph.<BR/><BR/>I am particularly touched by the issue of child abuse, having been one myself.<BR/><BR/>The reason is that child abuse is one of those Old-Testament disgraces which have survived in Christianity. The Thou-Shalt-Honor- Thy-Father-and-Mother lie which makes many Christians put up with abuse, even as adult children.<BR/><BR/>The church encourages to not only forgive child abuse, but it goes further to put pressure on victims to forgive the perpetrators and to HONOR them.<BR/><BR/>Talk about evil!Lorenahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16789999249899900833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5451437197826547692007-10-08T11:29:00.000-04:002007-10-08T11:29:00.000-04:00DRS: To continue... (I am aware that in another th...DRS: To continue... (I am aware that in another thread you announced you were giving up trying to convince us, but many people have announced this, and then returned to see how their declaration was taken. If you really have left, well, maybe some of these comments will be useful in other discussions.)<BR/><BR/>Much of your reply to me was stating problems that have not yet been solved. You are right about that, they haven't. They are complex ones and involve many different factors. The solutions are only beginning to be found, and yes, some may not be solved completely.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for your position, while science and rationality might not have solved them completely, religion has done nothing to solve them. <BR/><BR/>The weather is a very good example. Lets take the example of the damage done by lightning. For thousands of years, it was viewed as "God's weapon," a 'heavenly phenomenon hurled to earth for unimaginable reasons. It was the way God -- whichever god you believed in, but we are talking about Christians here -- 'smote' people.<BR/><BR/>And since it was, there was only one way to avoid it. Go to church, pray, promise to repent -- hoping all the time that it was the people in the next vilage over that God was mad at, and not you.<BR/><BR/>(Of course, God was pretty indiscriminant, so no matter how hard you prayed and repented, there was always somebody in town who wouldn't, an adulteress, a drunk, some sinner. Which meant that the God of Infinite Justice and Mercy would zap you, your wife, and your infant child in the process of zapping the unrepentant one.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, being good Christians, you'd built your church for the 'greater glory of God,' maybe on a hill, certainly higher than any other building, with that pointed steeple aiming heavenwards. And for some unknowable reason God would use the church as a target very frequently, more frequently than he would that lowly hovel the drunk inhabited.<BR/><BR/>Then along came Benjamin Franklin, an unbelieving rationalist who dared to investigate what lightning was, treating it not as an implement of God's justice but as a natural phenomena.<BR/><BR/>He even dared to suggest that it was a form of electricity, and that it would tend to hit the highest point in town, especially if that point was a steeple pointing heavenwards.<BR/><BR/>He didn't just explain the problem, he came up with a solution, one that didn't require the giving up of sins, prayer, or sacrifice. One which protected the believers and sinners alike. A lightning rod.<BR/><BR/>It worked. It even worked so well that the believers in town, scorning such rationalism, could put it on the church and then, when the rumbles of thunder started could go and pray for protection -- safe in the knowledge that, by some strange coincidence, God was no longer zapping churches.<BR/><BR/>[Thanks to the late Isaac Asimov for pointing this out.]<BR/><BR/>I'll respond to your other charges, DS, if you are still around to hear me.Prup (aka Jim Benton)http://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27895344918332038612007-10-07T23:36:00.000-04:002007-10-07T23:36:00.000-04:00DRS: I regret not responding to you earlier -- an...DRS: I regret not responding to you earlier -- and therefore to be accused of creating a strawman in another thread. I do have other responsibilities and other interests, and there are other comments here I might choose to respond to at a given time. However, since you -- in effect -- challenged me to respond. I will be glad to, at least to some of your statements and questions.<BR/><BR/>As for the questions you asked, some of them are answerable -- the Holocaust happened, Atlantis was a myth, a literary construct of Plato's to present certain ideas, Hitler and the scholars mentioned were real people -- the evidence for them, unlike those for a God, is pretty plain for anyone to investigate. <BR/><BR/>(As for your 'evolutionary' question, do us all a favor and at least learn the difference between cosmology, biogenesis, and evolution before you ask questions like these.)<BR/><BR/>As for your 'they died for Jesus, that proves Christianity is true' absurdity, people suffered persecution and died for Mormonism. People today are sacrificing their lives -- and, sadly, others -- for Islam. There were a fair number of people who died fighting for Naziism. Which of these were 'ratified by death?'<BR/><BR/>Even assuming the story of Pentecost is one of the rare stories the Bible told accurately, the Romans rarely attempted to 'kill people off' because of their religion -- they even accepted the Jews as subjects for many years though they would not worship the Emperor. (You also seem to have an interesting idea as to what the early Christians preached.)<BR/><BR/>I'll let someone else deal with the absurdity of your evidence for the flood. The earth has gone through a lot of changes in its 5 billion year history.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I will investigate Richard Dick Wilson further, since his books are available on line, but a few quick glances show me little reason to accept his special pleading or method of arguing. On the other hand, Wellhausen, who he treats so cavalierly has maintained his reputation for 150 years, and his basic thesis has been accepted by all serious scientific students of the history of the Bible, though details have bben modified over a period of time.<BR/><BR/>Wilson may have some knowledge of the archaeology of his time -- obviously he could know nothing of discoveries in the hundred years since he wrote. My first glancing at his work showed no evidence of such knowledge -- or even understanding that such knowledge would be beneficial, but again, this was a superficial look.<BR/><BR/>(And please, do not <I>ever</I> accuse me of paying attention to any sort of 'postmodernist.' Them's fightin' words, son.)<BR/><BR/>I hope you aren't so foolish as to think I would say something as idiotic as 'there is no evil in the world.' There is. But we are doing a better job of combatting it than ever before, and Christianity has a pretty poor track record over 2000 years of eliminating the evils you mention. (I don't currently have time to elaborate on this, but the reason that so many people fell for the Hitlers and other fascists that were a blight on almost every country from Finland to Romania is that they were not trained to challenge 'authoritative-sounding oratory' by putting the speaker's words to the test of evidence -- and it was religion that had trained them not to do this. As for Stalin, the reason why the Russian people did not revolt against him was -- as has been shown by many studies -- among other things that they had been trained by hundreds of years of "Caesaropapism" of the Orthodox Churxch to believe 'the Tsar can do no wrong, if he only knew what was happening he'd stop it,' and they merely transferred this attitude to Stalin.)<BR/><BR/>As for the Islamic treatment of women, you might be careful to avoid bringing that up, or you might have to answer for the treatment of women that Christianity supported for centuries, and which is still supported by many Evangelicals.<BR/><BR/>I will return to the rest of your comments later, but, as I said, I do have other commitments, and they are impinging on me. Possibly tomorrow.Prup (aka Jim Benton)http://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47470600187790923722007-10-07T13:32:00.000-04:002007-10-07T13:32:00.000-04:00A further point on some of the arguing that we do ...A further point on some of the arguing that we do here. We tend to use an argument -- <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> -- that is so obvious to us that we sometimes fail to realize that, unless it is carefully explained, it is difficult for untrained people to grasp. (Much of the running discussion on the 'problem of evil' comes from this. It seems -- and I think it is true -- that the people who are responding don't quite get what we are saying.)<BR/><BR/>Let me describe how this works symbolically, not for you or John, but for the responders.<BR/><BR/>There are two variants:<BR/><BR/>(One)<BR/>I:If A then B<BR/>II: But not B<BR/>III: Therefore not A<BR/><BR/>In words:<BR/>If A is true, then B <I>must</I> be true<BR/>But B is false<BR/><BR/>Therefore A is false.<BR/><BR/>(This is <B><I>only</I></B> refutable by proving either <B>that B is not false</B>, or that <I>the implication is false</I>, that is, that B does not necessarily follow from A.<BR/><BR/>The second version is similar:<BR/>If A and B then C<BR/>and B is true<BR/>but C is false,<BR/>therefore A is false.<BR/><BR/>(To give a simple version of the last:<BR/>A= John is older than me<BR/>B= I am 61 years old<BR/>therefore, John is older than 61.<BR/><BR/>But John is not older than 61.<BR/><BR/>Therefore A is false.)<BR/><BR/>It might help, when we get lost in the verbiage here to specifically put our arguments in this form so that people can see exactly what it is we are arguing.Prup (aka Jim Benton)http://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59247761743030740562007-10-07T11:50:00.000-04:002007-10-07T11:50:00.000-04:00Joseph: DRS's response to you as to why he thinks...Joseph: DRS's response to you as to why he thinks we don't believe is sad, but not surprising -- and I'm sure he is totally unaware of how insulting it is, since he is, in effect, calling us all liars.<BR/><BR/>It is very difficult for some Christians to accept the fact that unbelievers are responding to the evidence, that they have done research into Christianity and it is this which convinced them. This is why, I believe, that so many of them are so desperate to 'find another answer.' <BR/>Sometimes they accuse us of wanting to have an excuse to sin, sometimes they accuse us of being annoyed at the acts of Christians, sometimes they challenge us and claim we 'weren't <I>really</I> Christians.'<BR/>And sometimes all they do is quote the Bible to us, no matter how often we say we've read the Bible -- and frequently know it better than they do -- and just don't accept it as anything more than the writings of men detailing what they believed to be true.<BR/><BR/>But face the evidence, look at it, and attempt to refute it, no. (Look over the posts of the past six months here and see how rarely, when people have given the evidence on which they write, that Christians have responded directly to those posts.)<BR/><BR/>They instead act very much like the Cardinal who would not look through Galileo's telescope, because he knew the truth, that heavenly bodies were 'perfect' and therefore anything he might see could only be an illusion.<BR/><BR/>Evidence scares them. If they have to confront direct evidence that challenges their faith -- or if they have to admit that someone like John, you, or I, have abandoned faith based on specific evidence that it is untrue -- then they might be forced to look at it and feel the necessity to refute such evidence. But they are -- somewhere inside themselves -- aware of what you and John have said, that you were unable to refute such evidence, and that it dragged you 'kicking and screaming' to the side of disbelief.<BR/><BR/>But if you were unable to refute it, maybe they wouldn't be either. Maybe -- I'd argue 'definitely' -- it IS irrefutable. But they have too much invested in their faith, and are too afraid of the hell they see awaiting unbelievers.<BR/><BR/>Oh no, gotta find some other excuse why they don't believe.Prup (aka Jim Benton)http://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37331360236961515532007-10-06T23:28:00.000-04:002007-10-06T23:28:00.000-04:001 Sweet Rock, thank you for your kind words. I lo...1 Sweet Rock, thank you for your kind words. I look forward to more of your thoughtful comments in the near future!Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13623693513854351142007-10-06T22:31:00.000-04:002007-10-06T22:31:00.000-04:00Sorry about the funky formatting. I am not sure wh...Sorry about the funky formatting. I am not sure why that happened? It did not look like that in preview. Oh well. Good night!1 Sweet Rockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13037009883295975953noreply@blogger.com